Bob Costas Interviews Gary Bettman (from March 1)

Bob Costas Interviews Gary Bettman (from March 1)

Joined: March 28th, 2005, 10:24 pm

March 16th, 2012, 8:18 pm #1

My apologies if this was already posted on the forum. If so, I probably missed it while I was away from home for a while on work business.

Gary Bettman is interviewed about head-shots, fighting, and the state of hockey.

http://prohockeytalk.nbcsports.com/2012 ... y-bettman/

I was especially intrigued by the exchange between Costas and Bettman regarding a possible ban on fighting in the NHL (from 9:38-10:25 of video). At one point during that exchange, Bettman says some people argue that fans who might quit watching hockey due to a fight ban would be replaced by all-new fans who do not want any fighting. I do not believe that Bettman personally believes that, and I do not personally believe that, either. Sure, there are many facets of the game that do not have or need fighting, and Bettman even says that 2/3 of all NHL games do not have fights. But fighting is a possible aspect of every professional hockey game, and all of the long-time hockey fans know that.

In my own opinion:
-> Ban non-fighting head-shots? YES.
-> Ban all hockey fights? NO.
------------

Like him or hate him, Bettman actually makes some great talking points throughout the video.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: October 8th, 2006, 2:36 am

March 16th, 2012, 9:09 pm #2

sorry for the redundant statement.

he will say anything to get people on board. True or false. Im sure he is aware that he has to soften the blow so to speak when it comes to fans vs the bastardizing of the sport.

Dont trust anything that comes out of his mouth becauase the only thing he cares about is what the owners want and thats money.

.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: January 28th, 2011, 2:43 am

March 16th, 2012, 10:14 pm #3

My apologies if this was already posted on the forum. If so, I probably missed it while I was away from home for a while on work business.

Gary Bettman is interviewed about head-shots, fighting, and the state of hockey.

http://prohockeytalk.nbcsports.com/2012 ... y-bettman/

I was especially intrigued by the exchange between Costas and Bettman regarding a possible ban on fighting in the NHL (from 9:38-10:25 of video). At one point during that exchange, Bettman says some people argue that fans who might quit watching hockey due to a fight ban would be replaced by all-new fans who do not want any fighting. I do not believe that Bettman personally believes that, and I do not personally believe that, either. Sure, there are many facets of the game that do not have or need fighting, and Bettman even says that 2/3 of all NHL games do not have fights. But fighting is a possible aspect of every professional hockey game, and all of the long-time hockey fans know that.

In my own opinion:
-> Ban non-fighting head-shots? YES.
-> Ban all hockey fights? NO.
------------

Like him or hate him, Bettman actually makes some great talking points throughout the video.
Players are already manipulating their bodies by making their heads the point of first contact; can you imagine how much worse it would be with a total ban? It's like how players taunt the opposition to take a CFB penalty by standing three feet out from the boards with their back turned without a care in the world. It's a sad state of affairs when nobody is responsible for their own well being anymore. Say goodbye to these:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AnV1ohMbkyk


If there is ever a total ban on headshots or fighting, I'll be moving on.

Quote
Like
Share

Joined: April 15th, 2010, 11:03 pm

March 16th, 2012, 11:08 pm #4

like half of those are already banned hits? At least 5 of those hits are elbows or blind-side hits to the head.

I'm also in the party opposing a ban on fighting, but half of those hits are stupid, senseless, and dangerous. I like hard hits, but not the ones that are going to ruin someone's career or life.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: October 31st, 2004, 10:54 pm

March 16th, 2012, 11:17 pm #5

They are numbered 1 through 10. Specifically, which hits are elbows or blindsides?

They all looked clean to me, perhaps #10 on Lindros is a bit of an elbow, but all those hits were head on, no blindside, guys looking at their skate laces. Notice no one jumps him after? Those were perfectly legal hits and still should be.

You're gonna skate around with your head down, you're gonna run into a brick wall. The onus is on the puck carrier to see who's coming, they teach this in grade one...


And btw, Kronwall is still hitting guys like this.



Chris Relke photo
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: April 15th, 2010, 11:03 pm

March 17th, 2012, 9:13 am #6

10) While legal, it's still a pretty under-handed tactic to take, and is pretty damn close to a slewfoot if you ask me. As can be seen from the landing, it's an inherently dangerous move to make.

9) Leading with the forearm/elbow. Pretty self-explanatory. You either lock the arm to the side or it's dirty - there are no ifs, ands, or buts about it.

8) A little high, but probably legal. Another 5 feet and it's a charge. This is a pretty subjective hit, and I can certainly understand why hits like this take a lot of heat.

7) Obvious charge is obvious. He came from the middle of the ice for the intent of laying a hit, and had absolutely no desire to play the puck. In the replay, you can see him leading with the forearm/elbow again.

6) Solid hit.

5) Elbow. Watch it a few times. Plain as day.

4) Looks clean, but the camera angle and timing are really poor. Also looks like an interference possibly (I couldn't tell who touched the puck last to change its direction; see the poor camera angle).

3) Another borderline charge. The only defense he has here is that if he doesn't lay a check, there's a possible scoring opportunity. On the other hand, obliterating him with a 15 foot head-start is unnecessary.

2) Say hello to Mr. Elbow again.

1) Forearm/elbow from the blind-side. Unless Lindros can see at a 90 degree angle with ease, he has no way of knowing this is coming.

Again, I like big hits and get caught up in the excitement like everyone else. I think the argument that fighting causes enough injuries to ban it is stupid. On the other hand, hits to the head are absolutely unnecessary, and have no place in this sport. This isn't "softening" the game, or a bunch of nancy-boys trying to make it less entertaining; it's about not destroying players' brains; it's about not ruining their career for 20 seconds of cheers.

Stevens played in a different time, and nowadays, almost all of these hits would be penalties, if not suspensions. There's no place for them, there's no need for them. Unless you're some blood-thirsty savage who gets off on suffering from others who are just trying to play the game.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: January 10th, 2012, 7:10 pm

March 17th, 2012, 3:10 pm #7

to be watching ringette if you consider all those, or most, illegal !!
That's called hockey, Canadian hockey, I know it hasnt been played for years but thats what it used to look like, apparently you prefer the Euro BS we've been forced to watch since all the rule changes!

let me guess, you also desire to protect people from themselves....afterall more laws to protect individuals from themselves is just what we need, right?
When I was a child my parents used to tell me "toughen up, it's a cruel world out there" nowadays I can only imagine what parents are telling their children...."ohhhhh sweetyPie, I will call my congressman and make sure he enacts a law so you never get hurt like that again...."

Fook me man
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: October 31st, 2004, 10:54 pm

March 17th, 2012, 5:50 pm #8

10) While legal, it's still a pretty under-handed tactic to take, and is pretty damn close to a slewfoot if you ask me. As can be seen from the landing, it's an inherently dangerous move to make.

9) Leading with the forearm/elbow. Pretty self-explanatory. You either lock the arm to the side or it's dirty - there are no ifs, ands, or buts about it.

8) A little high, but probably legal. Another 5 feet and it's a charge. This is a pretty subjective hit, and I can certainly understand why hits like this take a lot of heat.

7) Obvious charge is obvious. He came from the middle of the ice for the intent of laying a hit, and had absolutely no desire to play the puck. In the replay, you can see him leading with the forearm/elbow again.

6) Solid hit.

5) Elbow. Watch it a few times. Plain as day.

4) Looks clean, but the camera angle and timing are really poor. Also looks like an interference possibly (I couldn't tell who touched the puck last to change its direction; see the poor camera angle).

3) Another borderline charge. The only defense he has here is that if he doesn't lay a check, there's a possible scoring opportunity. On the other hand, obliterating him with a 15 foot head-start is unnecessary.

2) Say hello to Mr. Elbow again.

1) Forearm/elbow from the blind-side. Unless Lindros can see at a 90 degree angle with ease, he has no way of knowing this is coming.

Again, I like big hits and get caught up in the excitement like everyone else. I think the argument that fighting causes enough injuries to ban it is stupid. On the other hand, hits to the head are absolutely unnecessary, and have no place in this sport. This isn't "softening" the game, or a bunch of nancy-boys trying to make it less entertaining; it's about not destroying players' brains; it's about not ruining their career for 20 seconds of cheers.

Stevens played in a different time, and nowadays, almost all of these hits would be penalties, if not suspensions. There's no place for them, there's no need for them. Unless you're some blood-thirsty savage who gets off on suffering from others who are just trying to play the game.
as those that will not see...

No point even discussing this, clearly the sky is green in your world.



Chris Relke photo
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: October 8th, 2006, 2:36 am

March 17th, 2012, 6:13 pm #9





.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: October 12th, 2009, 10:18 pm

March 17th, 2012, 8:42 pm #10

They are numbered 1 through 10. Specifically, which hits are elbows or blindsides?

They all looked clean to me, perhaps #10 on Lindros is a bit of an elbow, but all those hits were head on, no blindside, guys looking at their skate laces. Notice no one jumps him after? Those were perfectly legal hits and still should be.

You're gonna skate around with your head down, you're gonna run into a brick wall. The onus is on the puck carrier to see who's coming, they teach this in grade one...


And btw, Kronwall is still hitting guys like this.



Chris Relke photo
I agree Kronwall lays some of the biggest hits in the league today, but he delivers them differently than Stevens did. Kronwall almost always turns his back as he is hitting the opponent who in essence runs into a wall. Kronwall doesn't run the risk of a call with an elbow or shoulder because they aren't near the point of contact. He's very good at it and I'm not sure why you don't see the technique copied more often. Stevens routinely hit guys who were near or engaged with another player and he, in effect, came out of nowhere and crushed the puck carrier. Not always, but a lot of the time. I disliked the Devils and their ******* trapping game, so I disliked Stevens. However, for the casual fan, if you were unsure who was a poor puck carrier, Stevens would point him out for you the minute the guy looked for the puck in his skates.
Quote
Like
Share